On 2024. Dec 6., Fri at 15:27, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > Your critique of my position as elitist misses the mark and oversimplifies > the argument I’ve made. Let me clarify: the problem I outlined is not about > withholding "objective truth" from the public or assuming the "masses" are > incapable of discernment. It’s about recognizing the real dangers of > disinformation and the responsibilities that come with the power to curate > influential platforms like Joe Rogan's. I want that discernment to rise to > the level where every non-violent person would have access to building any > technology/weapon they wish; but would see in historical context how odious > and self-defeating raising arms against people is. We've done so millions > of times because we lack arguments; and it has never brought the lasting > peace it was supposed to. > > Use of gun against fellow people = lack of ability to argue. And seeing > how amenable and vulnerable everybody is to left vs. right tribalisms makes > comprehensive transparency and free access to all information > irresponsible. If you disagree and find this elitist, then equip everybody > with the most powerful weapons known to man. Including the neighbor of > yours dislikes you. Total transparency and freedom is both utopian and > naive in this historical context, as we can see from the frequent mass > shootings and assassinations (and their attempts) in USA and from weapons > history in general. > > It is disingenuous to suggest that my concerns stem from a belief that the > public is "too stupid." Rather, the issue lies with the simplistic framing > and curation of Rogan’s platform and the online world more broadly, which > gives disproportionate weight to certain narratives while obscuring or > oversimplifying others. This isn't about protecting the public from > themselves but about holding accountable those who wield influence over > public discourse. For instance, by amplifying certain voices—be they > pseudoscientific, conspiratorial, or aligned with particular ideological > interests, right or left—Rogan shapes narratives in ways that are neither > neutral nor without consequence. > > Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to > unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical > and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack > the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic > intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet > connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit > some university course online or in person. *Elevating Rogan and popular > figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, > while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their > platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to > oppose.* >
Touché! This is a good point. Your assumption about my arguments reflecting progressive or liberal > elitism is misplaced. My positions are more nuanced and cannot be neatly > categorized into such labels. For example, I support a fiscal union in > Europe—a stance that angers my conservative/nationalist friends—because I > believe it is essential for remaining globally competitive. At the same > time, I advocate for substantial investment in renewables, not through > traditional state-led models but through state-of-the-art > private-sector-driven financial engineering, incentivized by performance > measures controlled by taxpayers and paid for by ECB or EIB. I see nobody > proposing this, as everybody is too busy defending their biases. This is an > original argument that illustrates what we could do, if we let go of "right > vs left" pointlessness. This often puts me at odds with progressives > because they don't trust bankers and hedge funds; I don't trust them > either, but I know of the efficacy/sophistication of their risk management > tools regarding investments. Furthermore, I criticize the EU's opaque and > disingenuous technocracy, advocating for reforms that prioritize > efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and democracy while strengthening > Europe’s geopolitical and economic position. EU governance should be > comprised of more figures representative of diverse demographics that > include farmers in Italy, workers in failing industries of the north, > artists in Paris etc. instead of technocrats. > > Being pro-reform EU is not about symbolic gestures or abstract ideals like > diversity, equity, and inclusion for its own sake, but about pragmatic > geopolitics and economics: a reformed, unified Europe is better positioned > to address global volatility and risks. In an increasingly multipolar world > dominated by major powers like the U.S., China, and a resurgent Russia, > Europe has the potential to act cohesively to protect its economic > interests, secure energy independence, and enhance its defense > capabilities. I also disagree with my progressive friends here. Without > reform, inefficiencies and disunity weaken its ability to navigate global > challenges, leaving it vulnerable to external pressures and internal > instability. > > My positions challenge both sides because I reject simplistic, tribal > solutions. I’m not defending liberal platitudes or promoting > conservative/nationalist nostalgia and utopias of the past; I’m calling for > a more sophisticated approach to tackling complex challenges. By reducing > my critique to this elitist stereotype, you sidestep the substance of my > argument. It’s not elitist to demand accountability and thoughtful curation > from those shaping public discourse—it’s responsible. > > Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that curatorial responsibility is not > about silencing dissent or policing thought; it’s about providing the > framing and context necessary for critical evaluation. If we’re serious > about fostering a more informed public discourse, we cannot overlook the > biases, reductionism, and opportunistic oversimplification that dominate > platforms like Rogan’s. The alternative isn’t “no Rogan,” but rather a > Rogan—or any other influential platform—held accountable to the standards > of the public discourse they claim to facilitate. My argument is about > elevating, not diminishing, the quality of the conversation for everyone, > regardless of political leaning or intellectual background. And of course > we can agree to disagree. > > On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 6:22:37 AM UTC+1 Giulio Prisco wrote: > >> Thank you PCG for engaging with this post and taking the time to reply >> with thoughtful arguments. But I disagree (and very strongly so) with >> what seems to be one of your premises: that the public (aka the little >> people or the unwashed masses) is too stupid and must be protected by >> some elites that know better. I very much disagree. >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 3:31 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Giulio's argument highlights the tension between the trade-off of noise >> for signal in public platforms like Joe Rogan's podcast, which undeniably >> wields significant reach and influence. While I agree that public access to >> figures like Roger Penrose and other scientists with unconventional but >> valuable ideas is crucial, I think the broader implications of the >> platform’s framing, curation, and biases need to be examined critically. >> > >> > Joe Rogan's platform frequently reinforces reductionist and popular >> trends, where complex issues are stripped of context and presented as >> binary conflicts. This reductionism risks doing more harm than good, >> particularly when it allows misinformation or opportunistic ideologies to >> dominate public attention. The presence of noise might be an acceptable >> price for signal if the audience were uniformly equipped to discern the >> difference. However, such platforms often exploit cognitive biases—like >> confirmation bias and emotional appeal—leading to a conflation of the noise >> with the signal. When voices espousing bad faith arguments are amplified >> (without sufficient critique or framing) the consequences can skew public >> discourse toward division and obfuscation, as has been the case. >> > >> > Your defense of Rogan as a counterbalance to "thought policing" and >> "cancel culture" raises valid concerns about freedom of expression. >> However, equating critique of harmful ideas with suppression is a dangerous >> oversimplification. Platforms like Rogan's must recognize their curatorial >> responsibility: the act of amplifying voices and framing their ideas is not >> neutral. Without providing the tools for audiences to evaluate content >> critically, the "noise" becomes more than a harmless cost; it becomes a >> mechanism for reinforcing pseudoscience, disinformation, and divisive >> ideologies. >> > >> > Take Penrose as an example. His notable contributions to physics, for >> which he earned a Nobel Prize, do not make his ideas on Gödel’s theorem and >> Mechanism infallible. His Gödelian critique against computationalism >> misinterprets Gödel’s theorem, which highlights epistemic limits for >> possible machines and humans alike, rather than proving humans transcend >> mechanistic processes. While there’s some indication Penrose has >> reconsidered the validity of this argument, assuming correctness on the >> basis of accolades is unscientific. Science demands critical engagement >> with arguments, not deference to authority or committee decisions. >> > >> > This brings us to the broader problem: the value of figures like >> Penrose and Goertzel is undermined when presented without proper framing. >> Public discourse shaped by popular platforms needs rigor and context to >> avoid reducing valuable ideas to fodder for opportunistic or ideologically >> motivated narratives. While I understand the appeal of exposure through a >> platform like Rogan’s, the ethical weight of curation cannot be ignored. >> Popularity does not equate to merit, nor does it justify giving any voice a >> platform without scrutiny. >> > >> > While I appreciate the importance of platforms for diverse voices, the >> balance between noise and signal must be more carefully managed than Joe >> sitting there and asking his minion for context by googling some issue, >> reading the first responses, going on reddit/twitter and proclaiming >> "true/false". Rogan conflates online opinion snapshots on context >> eliminating platforms with truth, as evidenced by his recent statements >> regarding the X community vetting ideas with the help of a couple of >> specialists posting "the truth, so everybody knows, which is why X is so >> great". How scientific is that? Platforms like Rogan’s could serve as >> powerful venues for public education and discourse, but only if they accept >> their responsibility to uphold intellectual rigor and ethical framing. >> Without this, the signal risks being drowned out by the very noise it >> claims to correct. Instead of amplifying popular reductionisms, public >> platforms must prioritize fostering informed, critical engagement, >> elevating not just voices, but the discourse itself. >> > >> > Popular internet is a context free zone, almost by discursive >> necessity: how else would "copium" taste so good to so many? >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, December 5, 2024 at 2:34:43 PM UTC+1 John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 12:25 AM Giulio Prisco <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> > So in Joe Rogan's show (like everywhere) there's some noise besides >> the signal. Terrence Howard is noise. >> >> >> >> >> >> But Terrence Howard is VERY predictable noise, but Rogan invited him >> on his show anyway. It's one thing to have opinions about things that are >> on the very frontier of knowledge that only a minority of scientists in the >> physics community have, such as Roger Penrose, and somebody insisting that >> 1×1 = 2 and believing that the square root of 2 is nonsense. But at least >> Howard's idiocies will not kill anybody, but the anti-vaccine lunatics that >> Rogan invited on his program, when 4000 Americans were dying of COVID in a >> single day (911 only killed 2977) was irresponsible because that DID kill >> people. Rogan says he wants "a debate on vaccine science" but science had >> that debate 200 years ago and as far as science is concerned the >> controversy is over, vaccines work, and during the last 200 years vaccines >> have saved hundreds of millions if not billions of lives. >> >> >> >> And the fact that Joe Rogan believes that the perfect man to be >> president is a convicted felon and traitor who instigated a coup d'état in >> an attempt to become dictator, is a data point refuting the proposition >> that Mr. Rogan is a font of wisdom. However there is reason to believe that >> Mr. Rogan did well at his former job, giving color commentary during >> televised wrestling matches. >> >> >> >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> >> twm >> >>> >> >>> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an email to [email protected]. >> > To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed92fa9f-abf8-46e3-a85d-778679d36eb2n%40googlegroups.com. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ec02afc-3321-4e33-b3c3-6f7cc508a9f3n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ec02afc-3321-4e33-b3c3-6f7cc508a9f3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAKTCJyc_mH2ivF0r6fuXN2J-DZqKf-FdrSW-rprx6YZr4djVXg%40mail.gmail.com.
